Citation: R v Stanton [2020] NSWDC 454
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 June 2020
Judge: Colefax SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 35-year-old cabinetmaker, was sentenced for two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm whilst under the influence of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine), contrary to s 52A(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Both offences arose from a single motor vehicle accident on Picton Road in the early morning of 8 May 2018.
The offender was driving a colleague to their workplace when his vehicle first veered into the emergency lane. His vehicle then crossed double white lines into oncoming traffic, striking one car before colliding head-on with a second vehicle driven by a 25-year-old nurse. The colleague and the nurse sustained serious injuries, including significant bowel damage. The nurse also suffered severe psychological harm, required a medically induced coma, and faced at least six further surgical operations.
At sentencing, the offender denied having smoked methylamphetamine, claiming passive exposure in a small room as the source of the drug in his system. The Crown called a pharmacologist whose evidence the court accepted beyond reasonable doubt: passive exposure could not have produced the concentration of methylamphetamine found in the offender's blood.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate objective seriousness of each offence, having regard to the R v Whyte guideline judgment?
- How should the discount for a guilty plea be calibrated where the offender gave untruthful evidence at the sentencing hearing?
- Whether special circumstances existed to vary the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence.
- How to structure an aggregate sentence where two victims were seriously injured in a single accident.
Decision
The court found the offender's moral culpability to be high. His decision to drive while significantly affected by methylamphetamine constituted a serious abandonment of his responsibility as a driver. The offence involving the nurse was rated above the mid-range of objective seriousness; the offence involving the colleague was rated at the mid-range.
The court rejected the offender's account that he had ingested methamphetamine passively and found, as a consequence, that other elements of his exculpatory account were also unreliable on the balance of probabilities. Because the offender gave false evidence at the sentencing hearing in an attempt to minimise his culpability, the court reduced the guilty plea discount from the standard 25% to 20%.
The indicative sentence for the first count (involving the nurse), before discount, was 4 years 6 months, reduced to 3 years 7 months after the 20% discount. The indicative sentence for the second count (involving the colleague), before discount, was 3 years, reduced to 2 years 4 months. The court imposed an aggregate term of 4 years 6 months imprisonment, with a degree of accumulation reflecting that two people were seriously harmed.
The court found special circumstances warranting a slightly adjusted non-parole period, citing three factors: this was the offender's first custodial term; the COVID-19 pandemic had restricted prison visitors; and the offender's separation from his young daughter, of whom he was the sole custodian, made the sentence additionally burdensome. A non-parole period of 3 years was set. The minimum 12-month driving disqualification was imposed, deliberately set at the minimum to support the offender's rehabilitation and return to employment on release.
Orders Made
- Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months, commencing 30 June 2020.
- Non-parole period of 3 years, commencing 30 June 2020 and expiring 29 June 2023.
- Balance of term of 1 year and 6 months, commencing 30 June 2023 and expiring 29 December 2024.
- Driving disqualification of 12 months (the minimum period), commencing 29 June 2023.
Key Takeaways
- A guilty plea discount may be reduced below the standard 25% where an offender gives false evidence at a sentencing hearing that attempts to minimise culpability, even if the plea itself is not withdrawn.
- Where a single incident produces two seriously injured victims, some degree of accumulation in an aggregate sentence is appropriate, even where there was only one accident.
- The District Court treated the offender's rejection of responsibility through untruthful evidence as directly relevant to the quantification of the plea discount, applying a 20% rather than 25% reduction.
- Special circumstances for varying the non-parole ratio were found on three concurrent grounds: a first custodial term, the hardship of COVID-19 restrictions in custody, and the impact of incarceration on the offender's dependent child.
- Imposing the minimum disqualification period was expressly justified by the court as serving rehabilitation, on the basis that the offender would need a licence to resume employment on release to parole.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(3)(a): dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm whilst under the influence of a prohibited drug (maximum penalty: 7 years imprisonment)
Cases:
- R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343: Court of Criminal Appeal guideline judgment on dangerous driving offences, relevant to objective seriousness assessment